As you can imagine, this proposition hasn't caused too much controversy. I mean who doesn't agree that sexual crimes (particularly those against children) deserve harsh punishment? But, might our eagerness to castigate this group of individuals take us too far? In a recent article published by the APA, it was noted that while recidivism rates in this population are low (15%) and decrease with rehabilitation (to 10%), there is minimal funding spent on enhancing rehabilitation programs. Furthermore, there is a glut of legislation that makes it virtually impossible for these individuals to reintegrate into society. Perhaps you have heard of the problem in Miami county? There is a group of sex offenders that live under a bridge because there is literally nowhere they can live that complies with legal restrictions (i.e. living a certain distance from schoolyards).
Also, it's important to remember, not all sex offenders are the same. Do you remember the case of the 18 year old African American boy who had sex with his 16 year old white girl friend? Her parents got upset, he was convicted of statutory rape, and now he has to register as a sex offender.
Now, listen, I'm no apologist for this group of individuals,I just want to think a little bit about what it means to regulate Facebook in this way. Interestingly, I didn't find it odd to hear that in some states convicted sex offenders were banned from Facebook. That seems legitimate, I guess. But it seemed weird to read that the state was going to force them to label themselves on their profiles. For a lot of people, Facebook and Social Media is a place where you can fully and complexly define yourself and interact with others. It's freeing. I get excited when a real-life friend adds me as a Facebook friend, because, then, I think, they will get a real idea of what I'm about. Something seems wrong about taking this last vestige of freedom away from individuals, that, remember, have already served the time for their crimes.
So, now we find our way to the heart of the matter: What's the reason for the legislation? Is it meant to protect children? Is it meant to be punitive? Is it meant to be a deterrent? As with any policy there is always the delicate work of finding a balance amongst these interests. If it is meant to protect children, is there no way that we can find a better way? We can regulate the age of a sex offender's friends, we can limit messaging capability, we can manage friending features-- these are obviously not punitive measures and would be fine by the ACLU. If our concern is deterring behavior, we know that Facebook isn't going to do that job.
Facebook is a place where we create our identities. I have a hard time accepting the government legislating in this arena at all, and if they are going to do so, they need to be enacting policies that actually address the issue without being unnecessarily punitive toward a population that is already disallowed to participate in society.
No comments:
Post a Comment